It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 18:38

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 46

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 42

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 610 Q49 V27
GPA: 2.5
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jan 2016, 14:06
Chembeti wrote:
My answer is also A.

If I were a VC and need to start doing the business of extracting uranium from sea water, I will go with A because that is the shortest way to determine the success of my venture. Sure, C also helps, but it takes time. And the question is about 'most useful', hence A wins over C.


I chose C because of the adverb "commercially"
A is very right but it concerns the feasibility of the plan not commercial impact (maybe for long term, yes)
Then your comments definitely throw some light to me.
Thank you.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 42

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Nov 2015
Posts: 47

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 1

Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2016, 13:29
Argument: If cost of extracting Uranium from seawater is not reduced , then this method is not commercially viable
i.e. if this method is to be commercially viable, then cost of extraction must be reduced.

To evaluate this argument, we need to check whether the cost of extraction really needs to be reduced or can something else make this method commercially viable?

A. if Land deposits decrease rapidly, then we can expect price of Uranium to go up--making uranium extraction from sea water commercially viable.
If not price will keep steady, not making seawater Ur extraction commerically viable until cost can be reduced.
B. irrelevant
C. asks whether cost can be reduced but that is not what the argument is about.
yes there are tech to reduce cost, good -argument still stands
no, there are no tech to reduce cost, ok but you still need to reduce cost- argument still stands.
D.Yes , there significant seawater Ur deposits compared to land deposits, what about cost of extraction? cant say!
No, there are no significant Ur deposits compared to land deposits. ok, still to extract this small deposits commerically- you still need to reduce cost- argument still stands.
E. irrelevant.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 1

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 12 Mar 2013
Posts: 8

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 204

Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2017, 23:28
I got confused between the mine deposits and land deposits. How can we consider the both as same?
_________________

Hit +1 Kudos If you like this post!

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 204

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 30 Dec 2015
Posts: 90

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 153

GPA: 3.92
WE: Engineering (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Feb 2017, 23:19
MaMa77 wrote:
I got confused between the mine deposits and land deposits. How can we consider the both as same?


Mine deposits = land deposits, and in the case they were not the same, choice D would be irrelevant anyways.
_________________

If you analyze enough data, you can predict the future.....its calculating probability, nothing more!

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 153

Manager
Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 12 Oct 2015
Posts: 209

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 105

Location: Canada
Concentration: Leadership, Accounting
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
GPA: 3.3
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Feb 2017, 08:35
gmat blows wrote:
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?

a. Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
b. Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater
d. Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
e. Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater.


[Reveal] Spoiler:
-----
I was able to narrow down to A, C, and D
Ive convinced myself that 'technological advaces' to reduce cost was slighltly a shift of scope.
now, between A and D. I feel that they are almost synonymous in meaning. It would be important to know whether the uranium is being depleted (if not, then extracting from seawater is not needed). However, doesnt D) somewhat imply the same thing? If there isnt alot of uranium in the seawater to begin with, then the even the reduction in cost would not be worth it?


Am i thinking too much about this?
thanks.


This is a great question and I just want to add my two cents to clarify the difference between A & C. I picked A first and then started thinking about C which also makes a lot of sense. But here's my reasoning for why C is definitely wrong.

A) Correct answer because, if land deposits are running out in 10 years then extracting from seawater becomes a necessity. At that point think about supply and demand, when the supply decreases, demand increases and the price goes up. Therefore at some point it becomes commercially viable. Now think about OIL, when the price of oil is $40 a barrel, it becomes commercially unprofitable to dig oil out of Alberta's tar sands, so companies stop extracting it. But when the price goes up, they start extracting because it becomes commercials viable. Demand has a huge impact on the price. Now imagine if all the Oil in the world ran out and we found oil on the Moon, would it become commercially viable to go to the moon? Yes, people would start going to the Moon to get oil. So think about that.

For C) many people are stuck with this option, I also thought this might be correct BUT, think about the supply. IF the supply of land uranium is unlimited, it will never run out, so even if there's new technology then that technology might make it cheaper to extract from land. (There is a lot of uncertainty). So think in terms of extremes, unlimited resources on land, therefore we may never have to extract from water, even if it becomes cheaper than it was before. Say Extracting from land = $1, and extracting from water = $10, even if the cost of extracting from water comes down to $5 with new technology, its still cheaper to get it from Land. So without knowing the cost of each method and supply, we can't answer with C.

So the answer is A. Hope this helps!
_________________

Winners dont make excuses.

350--> 700

https://gmatclub.com/forum/700-q47-v39-ir-7-awa-246682.html

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 105

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Feb 2017
Posts: 48

Kudos [?]: 6 [1], given: 30

GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.67
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2017, 18:58
1
This post received
KUDOS
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?

a. Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
b. Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
c. Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater
d. Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
e. Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater.

My 2 cents.

Premise 1 : Most uranium comes from mines
Premise 2 : cost of extraction from sea > world market price
Conclusion : Unless cost goes down, extraction from sea is not viable --> which means, stick with mining from land.

I was between A and C and eliminated C because although it is tempting, technology is not mentioned in the stem.
A is correct because, if uranium from land is no longer possible due to depletion, then people will be forced to extract from sea, pushing the price up.

Kudos [?]: 6 [1], given: 30

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Posts: 16

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 13

Location: India
Schools: ISB '19, NUS '20, NTU '19
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.7
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2017, 10:31
why not (b)? since most of the uranium is used where it is mined then there can be reason to extract uranium at those places where there are no mines to meet the local demand making it commercially viable.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 13

Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1050

Kudos [?]: 1602 [0], given: 400

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2017, 21:17
Quote:
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?

(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted

(B) Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined

(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater

(D) Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land

(E) Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater

ramsahoo wrote:
why not (b)? since most of the uranium is used where it is mined then there can be reason to extract uranium at those places where there are no mines to meet the local demand making it commercially viable.

The conclusion is that "until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable." According to the author, the only way that extracting uranium from seawater will likely become commercially viable is if the COST of that method is decreased. But what if the PRICE that Uranium fetches on the world market increases? In that case, the seawater method could become commercially viable even if the cost does not decrease.

In order to evaluate the author's argument, we would want to know whether the price of Uranium is likely to increase, so (A) is the best choice.

As for choice (B), if the cost is greater than the price, then the method is not economically viable. We are told that the cost of the seawater method is currently greater than the price, REGARDLESS of where the Uranium is used.

Imagine a city with a high demand for Uranium, so you open a seawater extraction plant nearby. In order to be commercially viable, you'd still have to sell your Uranium at a price that exceeds the cost. But if that price exceeds the world market price, the city will buy it's Uranium from elsewhere, even though your plant is closer.

Sure, we could come up with hypothetical situations in which choice (B) might be relevant (i.e. something about transportation costs?), but in order to evaluate the specific argument in this passage, choice (A) is the most relevant and useful.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor at www.gmatninja.com | GMAT blog |food blog | Friendly warning: I'm really bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99... in any section order

YouTube verbal webinars:
"Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT | Parallelism and meaning | Simplifying GMAT verb tenses

Kudos [?]: 1602 [0], given: 400

Re: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.   [#permalink] 19 Oct 2017, 21:17

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 28 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines.

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.